Poll: Can a 2.5RS take a WRX off the line by 10mph or so?

[DerwenArtos12]

My truck could kill both so does it really matter. ( 2000 Sierra w/ chevy 572ci longblock)

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy

Originally posted by: Vic
To quote Carol Shelby, "If you get turbo lag, that's because you're driving it wrong."

was he talking about a AWD car launching it......i think not.....

Tell your friends about that little pedal on the far left called the "clutch". If you slip it just a wee little, you get a nice soft good launch with no lag and minimal stress on the transmission. The only time I get lag in my WRX is when I try to gun it at 15mph in 2nd gear

Oh, and a WRX weighs 3085 lbs., not ~3400


SampSon, I've seen several successful 2.5RS-T conversions. The secret is to get the ECU reflashed with a full dyno tune, so that the ECU compensates for the boost and runs richer. You also don't want too much boost as the RS EJ25 is not a low-compression engine.
When they go bad, what usually happened is that the owner just bolted on a turbo and expected it to work right out of the box with no tuning -- good way to run lean and det a piston.

well im sorry i was just putting the weight off the dyno sheet from one of the best subaru only tuners in the US
and if ya wanna get picky about it the curb weight on a RS is 2700-2800 (of a pre '02 that is)

and why don't you tell yourself that that little pedal over on the far left...when slipped at high revs....screws up the clutch

(oh and i own an RS)

and the key to doing an RS-T is doing a low 5-7psi turbo with IC and some tunning cuz if you get above 7psi you basically start having to replace engine parts and tune it alot

and here is a dyno of an RS-T with a 5psi turbo and a old sab IC (half the size of a WRX IC)
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/lowfatbaconboy/dyno_RST.jpg

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I dont understand what there is to debate, The WRX puts out something like 220HP.....the 2.5RS, something like 170HP.....what is there to question?

you people are teh stupid
turbo = turbo lag (and .5 less liters in the case of the WRX)
and AWD cars are not made to rev up to like 4-4.5k or more (where the turbo kicks in) and drop the clutch.....or the car will sometimes shudder and die or kill your clutch(or u could feather the clutch and smoke the crap out of it)

i have many friends w/ WRXes that complain about turbo lag all the time

if this were in say a RWD car with a LSD (turbo vs nonturbo) the turbo car would prolly win cuz you can actually drop the clutch in that situation with the revs in the turbo range.....

more power with a turbo and AWD does not mean off the line faster

"AWD cars are not made to rev up to like 4-4.5k or more.... and drop the clutch"
ROFLES! Guess thousands upon thousands of DSMers around the world have been doing it wrong all these years, eh?
"more power with a turbo and AWD dows not mean off the line faster"
ROFLES X2!!! See above comment Don't believe me? Come to Tulsa some time and I'll take ya for a spin
Turbo + AWD = insane 60' times that can only be matched by RWD drag vehicles with monster slicks.
Nothing and I mean NOTHING beats AWD + a turbo on the street for launching, end of story.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Vic
To quote Carol Shelby, "If you get turbo lag, that's because you're driving it wrong."

Sorry but that's because he was referring to the VNT Turbos that he turned Chrysler onto. It was/is a variable geometry turbo that was designed to eliminate lag. I happen to own one (see sig) and there's barely any noticible lag when getting into the throttle. That comment isn't directed at any old turbo setup...

 

[Vic]

lowfatbaconboy:

Hmm... I really didn't pay that close attention to the pics. Cobb could only get 199whp with a TBE? Not to nitpick, but I personally saw pdxtuning get 217whp on a car with a similar setup the Saturday before last. They also use a Mustang dyno btw.

Oh, and I said to slip it just a wee bit. I didn't say at high revs. That's unnecessary, as the lag only exists below 2500 rpm.

edit:

geno:

The turbo in the WRX (while somewhat small) is a low-lag unit, built by Mitsubishi, who worked with and copied their designs from those Chryslers.

IMO, people who complain about turbo lag... are in the wrong gear

 

[geno]

The turbo in the WRX (while somewhat small) is a low-lag unit, built by Mitsubishi, who worked with and copied their designs from those Chryslers.

Well they never really worked with Chrysler on the 2.2/2.5 Motors, they did however share some V6 motors and a 2.6 I4 that worked its way into the Startion/Conquest, but that was a 100% Mitsu motor. I'm not sure where you've heard that Mitsu copied Chrysler, but I've never heard of such a thing. And though the turbo in the WRX is small, so is the motor. I've never driven one, but some people complain about the lag. I'm not sure if these people that complain are first-time turbo drivers, but I think that they should've worked off of a larger motor motor to begin with on the WRX. I mean, they have droves of 2.5 motors, and 2.2's if I remember too (hmm, sound familiar? ), I realize the 2.0 is derived from the World Rally formula, but I think it should've packed some more cc's to begin with

sorry to go off on a tangent Back to my original original point, Shelby was hyping up his VNT car at the time with that statement

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

im sorry to dissapoint you but it seems some of the people on the nabisco(nasioc) forums seem to think you are wrong
Nasioc

and the WRX doesn't show any sign of the turbo until 3.5k and most people say they don't see good boost until 4-4.5 k

and from talking to more knowledgable subaru people if you do slip the clutch with high revs then you will screw the clutch some and if you drop the clutch you will have to replace 1st gear if you do it to much.....but would win a 60ft time (in a WRX)

so yes if you want to screw up the WRX in the long run it will win a 60ft time

"my 2.5 will kill my wrx anytime & everytime off the line...
wrx = turbo lag hell
rs = torque monster with no top end "
quote from someone on the subaru forums that owns both a rex and a RS

and whoever said DSMs do it all the time...yes i have a friend with a DSM never seen him rev it up and launch it....and those cars have so many problems as it is without dropping the clutch or slipping it

but anyways these cars aren't made for straight line racing as much as other cars...they are made more for twisties so why do you care how fast either does in a straight line

"That's unnecessary, as the lag only exists below 2500 rpm. "

vic: and the fact you think that the lag only exists below 2500 shows you know nothing about your car....
can you even tell me what the stock psi is on the turbo off your head ....or the compression ratio...cuz i can (on a wrx)

and about the TBE i could be wrong but i thought thats what marty had on his rex....but stock wrxs don't exactly put down the same power like an RS does....ive seen stock WRXs (on the same day same location on a mustang dyno) put down btwn 165hp and 190-5hp....a range of 25-30hp is a lot so that could be the reason for the discrepency in hp numbers.....or tempatures, altitudes and brands / sizes in TBE

 

[Vic]

lowfatbaconboy:

Off the top of my head, 13.5 psi and 8.2:1

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: Vic
lowfatbaconboy:

Off the top of my head, 13.5 psi and 8.2:1

wrong 14.2 psi and 8.0:1

i think the sti is 8.2:1 but not not totally sure

 

[SaintGRW]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy

and whoever said DSMs do it all the time...yes i have a friend with a DSM never seen him rev it up and launch it....and those cars have so many problems as it is without dropping the clutch or slipping it

you've been sadly mis-informed many have problems but a large amount can be blamed on the owner, what do you expect when younger people can get thier hands on a car that has potential and needs care.

there are about 80 guys in the local DSM club here and i'd say over 50% rev to like 5k and drop the clutch. you know why? because dropping it at 5k and having the wheels spin is better than reving to 3k and not having the wheels spin, when you let that clutch go and the wheels spin all is well. it's when you don't spin the wheels that stuff starts to bend.

as to your friends DSM 1 of 2 answers, 1. his car isn't making enough power to spin the wheels with a proper launch or 2. he doesn't know how to launch an AWD car properly.

 

[Vortec4800]

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, people who complain about turbo lag... are in the wrong gear

That's why I like powerful N/A cars - or even supercharged ones. There's just nothing like instant power when I want it no matter the gear.

 

[Vic]

lowfatbaconboy:

I have one question for you. Do you own a WRX? No? I didn't think so. I do. And my GF owns a MY01 GM6 (01 2.5RS coupe for those who don't know Subaru model codes). And I also used to own a 1G DSM (92 Plymouth Laser RS turbo AWD to be exact).
All I can say is that you don't know what you're talking about on so many levels it just isn't funny anymore.
Your last piece was a nice distraction, and I admit I took the bait on it, but you can google to your heart's desire (nice 14 hour lag there) 'cause I'm sick of reading your BS.

Proven facts: the best 60' time you can possibly hope for in a stock RS is 2.2 seconds. Stock WRX'es break 2 seconds all day every day with the right driver. There's your off-the-line results right there. The best 1/4-mile you can possibly hope for in a stock RS is a high-15. Stock WRX'es do mid-14's all day everyday. Who needs guessing and debating when you have track numbers?

As for this:

and the WRX doesn't show any sign of the turbo until 3.5k and most people say they don't see good boost until 4-4.5 k

Utter bullsh!t, that's all I can say. If "good boost" doesn't occur until 4.5k (as you say), then why is the stock peak torque at 4k? Answer that.

 

[maziwanka]

hell no (stock vs. stock)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Vortec4800

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, people who complain about turbo lag... are in the wrong gear

That's why I like powerful N/A cars - or even supercharged ones. There's just nothing like instant power when I want it no matter the gear.

Try starting off in 3rd. Or, better yet, punch it at 35mph in 5th. Then tell me if you believe that NA has instant power whenever you want it in any gear.

 

[Vortec4800]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Vortec4800

Originally posted by: Vic
IMO, people who complain about turbo lag... are in the wrong gear

That's why I like powerful N/A cars - or even supercharged ones. There's just nothing like instant power when I want it no matter the gear.

Try starting off in 3rd. Or, better yet, punch it at 35mph in 5th. Then tell me if you believe that NA has instant power whenever you want it in any gear.

I never said all N/A engines make good power like that. I have personally driven both an e30 m3 (the old boxy style with the 4 banger) and my friend's vw gti 1.8t. The m3 isn't much more powerful, 40 or so more hp and like 10 more peak tq, but it pulled so much faster in the same gear while freeway driving it's not even funny. HP wouldn't really help all that much with pulling in mid gear like that, its all torque right there. The GTI is much more of a pain to drive, when you shift all your power goes away for a second and you have to wait for it to all come back. I don't really even mind waiting for the power, its more the fact that I like to keep things constant. When you punch a car with a turbo, it surges after a second. When you punch the throttle in a N/A or supercharged car, you get all the power its got right away even if its not as much as the same car with a turbo. Sure you might get more when you get into the powerband, but its nothing like a turbo. I would much rather drive a car that's a little bit slower than a car that I have to wait for in order to be fast.